Australia: The Unlucky Country (Blackswan?)

Sorry I did mean an informal vote, I thought that was a Donkey vote

If informal votes made up 10% of all votes, is that not statistically significant to someone? I know it means nothing at the time, and nothing for that election cycle (as it would be already over), but it would possible give some confidence to someone wanting to break into an electorate?

It's just an idea, I'm not sure how accurate it is. I seem to recall the stats for the informal votes being counted and published somewhere.

In a way, I believe the Green vote of the last election was a protest vote... and boy did that backfire. So what option do people have, if they don't like any of the candidates and really don't want to support them?

 

Thanks for that Shiney, very good info and I really appreciate your perspective on this

That's true, although if it gets to be significant enough, they can't continue to blame it on non-English speakers surely. Maybe if the percentage got to be large enough, they could specifically put in place assistance for non-English speakers, and if the trend continued then they'd know that wasn't the cause.

But... 'they' is the Govt, and it is not in their interest, nor the Oppositions interest, to highlight it at all. So perhaps I'm way off

 

I hadn't thought of english language (or even people with a severe disability) being a reason for donkeys and informals. On reflection they could actually be a fair percentage of the informals (albeit still minor overall).

I've heard previously that a high proportion of new/recent migrants simply vote for the incumbent. Is that true Shiney?

 

I see it more this way. I have certain goals that I want to achieve in life. Things such as being happy, being healthy, being safe and also attaining these things for my family.

Now often when we want something, it's not as simple as going out and getting it. We need to research it, and if you want to be at the top of your game for a certain goal, you need to 100% know your stuff.

So lets say for financial safety, it actually takes a long time to debunk all of the sh*t that you've been taught as a child and a teenager. It takes a LOT of reading. Some very lucky people get there at 25. Some 30. 40, 50, 60. Some never. To some, that is no problem, but for someone who really wants to do all they can as far as financial safety goes, they will need to spend a lot of time educating themselves.

Then you have things like health and fitness. We're fed so much crap from the media and big pharma system that most people don't know that they can actually feel better than a drugged up zombie. It's a lifetime of learning, which is also time consuming.

These goals are attainable. Yes, you can say "why not start a political party and make a change", lets be honest, you will not be allowed to be successful! Although this is a bit of a defeatist attitude, look at Ron Paul. The guy has done some great things, but he will never win. A man like that can only get the masses on his side when the people are ready to learn. Until a man has NOTHING, will he have nothing to lose.

In my opinion, no one is going to revolt and fight the system while they could lose their house, lose their families' safety, their freedom. Once they have lost these things however, once they have been truly screwed, then there is a chance.

So having the goal of living in Australia under a political system that works and supports we the people to me, is just a complete waste of resources. Why waste my time, that could be spent researching attainable goals, on playing a rigged game? This extends to emotions as well. Come election night I have a smile on my face regardless of who wins!

So I'm not sure if that has made any sense, but that is why I don't vote (and why people do donkey votes). It is just simply not worth the effort in getting involved. That energy is much better spent elsewhere.

And holy shit, I sound like W&F now.

 

Thanks r0dman. Opportunity cost and likelihood of success were the main reasons that I could think of why people avoided the whole political arena but no one ever said as clearly as you. They are very cogent reasons. This is actually why I specifically raised Turnbull as one example of someone who was willing to take the leap of trying to drive the change even though it is no doubt personally costing him substantially.

In recent years (only recent because I have only recently been "enlightened" - and I'm not that old) I have started investing a portion of my time to actually getting face time with MPs and/or their advisors. Specifically to try to drive some of the beefs raised on here so often to an audience who can actually effect the political change.

Surprisingly I found that it wasn't that hard - mostly because the career politicians and staffers are yearning for good ideas and they themselves sometimes find it hard to find the time to be educated. I won't say that it hasn't been slow going so far (only meet key people every few weeks), but I would say that it seems a very promising route. (It has also required some expenses in the hundreds per year, which not everyone can afford or course.)

Saying this however, we'll see whether in 10 years time I end up being as disillusioned as W&F and start voting informal as well :lol:

 

Significant change in society comes from the bottom-up, not the top-down. The govt only rescinded racist, sexist and other policies when the people themselves largely lost their belief in those bad principles.

Sure, you can make some changes on the political side if you are well-connected enough. Maybe. But to me, history says it's simply not worth it and there is absolutely no-one out there worth my vote. Not that my vote is worth anything anyway. It's one vote. I can look back at all the elections where I didn't vote and ask myself if it would have made a difference if I had cast my vote. Guess what?

Government is what government is. There won't be any significant changes until society itself lets go of all these bad ideas and beliefs. That's where the action is. In society, not in the centralised govt.

I'm not disilliusioned. I'm quite optimistic about the long run, because these beliefs that people have about govt are fundamentally wrong, they are provably wrong, and just as other bad ideas have been thrown out in history and no-one would think about advocating them today, so too will the beliefs which surround govt. Maybe not in my lifetime but eventually they will.

 

r0dman that was one of the best non silver posts I've ever read here.